Disproving the claim that this particular person is behaving in this way because of these brain structures is nearly impossible with the state of neuroscience as it currently is, so it isn't a something that can be viewed as anything other than an interesting hypothesis at this stage. You just wouldn't be able to achieve anything approaching a decent level of statistical confidence from studying a single subject, no matter how many anecdotes you cite about them.
The standard of proof, and things you're expected to cite as evidence, is very different for "this particular person is a psychopath" vs "psychopaths in general have this characteristic".
>You just wouldn't be able to achive anything approaching a decent level of statistical confidence from studying a single subject, no matter how many anecdotes you cite about them.
Therefore, no one can be found guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt given that it's "just one person"?
No, you are. You're bringing up scientific standards of proof that are totally inapplicable to the question of whether one person meets the diagnostic criteria. Your argument would likewise "prove" that therapists can't diagnose patients with anything because they "only have anecdotal evidence" about "one person".
Yes, someone is very confused here and wasting people's time, but it's not me.
There has never been a diagnosis called "psychopathy" in either the DSM or ICD.[contradiction] The first edition of the DSM in 1952 had a section on sociopathic personality disturbances, then a general term that included such things as homosexuality and alcoholism as well as an "antisocial reaction" and "dyssocial reaction". The latter two eventually became antisocial personality disorder in the DSM and dissocial personality disorder in the ICD
By definition there is nothing biologic about anti-social behavior. That is to say, without social context there can be no 'anti-social'. Social context is a culture specific construct.
But you say, "Culture and social context are mere extensions of biology." Bullshit, I say.
The whole of popular "neuroscience" is so corrupted and bereft of real science one would be best served to ignore it for a decade or two.